1984 PLP 1769 (CLC)

Date of hearing : 9th cktoher1981. This is an appeal against the order dated 17‑5‑1981 passed by the learned VIII Senior Civil Judge/A S J/and Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No. 3772/78, allowing the respondent's above application on the ground of personal requirement. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed the aforesaid rent application on two grounds, namely, default for the period commencing from May, 1978 until the filing of the rent application on 3rd August, 1978 and also personal requirement. The above application was resisted by the present appellant. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following 3 issues :‑

"(1) Whether the opponent has wilfully committed default, if so since when? (2) Whether the applicant requires the premises for her personal bona fide use? (3) What should the order be?" In support of the rent application the respondent examined herself and also one of her sons. On the other hand the appellant examined himself. The learned Rent Controller through his order under appeal as pointed out herein above allowed the rent application on the ground of personal requirement alone and rejected the other ground. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Munawar Malik, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement cannot be supported by the evidence on record. Whereas, Mr. Zaffar Alain, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the personal requirement of the respondent stands proved as admittedly the respondent has 9 members of the family out of them 7 are majors.

3. It will suffice to observe that in her cross‑examination (which was recorded in February, 1979), the respondent stated that the two rooms in question were let out by her 3 or 4 years back. The rent application was filed in 1978 i. e. about after 2 or 3 years. It is also an admitted position that at the time of letting out the two rooms, the respondent had 9 members in her family. There was no change in the constitution of the family. Mr Zaffar Alam has pointed out that one of the respondent's daughters got married but because of certain dispute with her husband, she is putting up with the respondent alone. This fact itself does not prove any change in the constitution of the family as admittedly she was putting up with the respon dent at the time of letting out and she continues to live alone after her marriage with the respondent. If the respondent's above daughter after marriage would have started putting up with her husband with the respon dent, or any of the respondent's sons would have got married and would have continued to reside with his wife with the respondent, that might have constituted a change in the constitution of the family warranting filing of an ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement. Since the respondent had let out the two rooms about 2‑3 years prior to the filing of the rent case, she was expected to give cogent reason for letting out the two rooms in question. In the absence of any such explanation the respondent's application on the ground of personal requirement could not have been granted. I would therefore, allow the above appeal with no order as to costs and remand the case to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to allow the parties to lead the evidence on the aforesaid aspect. The learned Rent Controller shall dispose of the rent application within one year from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order. M. H. A. Case remanded.